Cost analysis and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions in an outpatient setting.
Colorectal ESD
ESD
Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Outpatient ESD
Journal
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver
ISSN: 1878-3562
Titre abrégé: Dig Liver Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 100958385
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
11
02
2018
revised:
23
09
2018
accepted:
25
09
2018
pubmed:
6
11
2018
medline:
19
9
2019
entrez:
3
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center. This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group. A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient. Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center.
METHODS
This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group.
RESULTS
A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30385079
pii: S1590-8658(18)30993-9
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2018.09.023
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
391-396Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.